D&D 5E Krynn's Free Feats: setting-specific or the future of the game?

[Maxperson]

Yes it does. Because dictionary.

You need to learn about dictionaries and definitions, because meanings of words change. Writing a definition down in a book doesn't keep that definition in stasis.

You are openly denying what a word means in the English language.

Nope. I'm teaching you how language works.

Since you are obviously incapable of accepting the actual dictionary definition of a word; I can only conclude that your appeals for objectivity are in bad faith at best since it is obvious from the above exchange that you only accept the 'objectivity' that you want despite actual empirical evidence to the contrary.

I note you continue to dodge the fact that you are trying to sell your subjective opinion about the game as some sort of objective truth, probably hoping that it will allow you to continue denying that people who remove death from their game are playing D&D. It doesn't work that way.

No matter how you twist and dodge, your opinions won't be fact. People who remove death will continue to be playing D&D no matter how you personally feel about it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You need to learn about dictionaries and definitions, because meanings of words change. Writing a definition down in a book doesn't keep that definition in stasis.

um... was he useing a not updated book or a modern updated website?
I mean I am mostly on your side on this one... but the words as they evolve update

 

[Azzy]

The definition of words is not his, mine, yours, or the "gaming community's" call to make on all societies behalf.

Yes, yes it does. That's how language evolves. Dictionaries are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. If a word or term gets used in an alternate manner in a statistically significant manner, guess what—the dictionary gets a new definition. Welcome to my TED Talk.

 

[Maxperson]

um... was he useing a not updated book or a modern updated website?
I mean I am mostly on your side on this one... but the words as they evolve update

They don't update immediately. Also, the altered definitions need to catch on and see widespread use. The definition of gatekeeping that the RPG community uses is only widespread withing the small percentage of the population that that are RPG players. The dictionary will not have updated based on that.

Nevertheless, the definition that the RPG community uses is the definition of gatekeeping that controls here, not the dictionary version.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Reveling in one's ignorance is generally not a good look

Und yet...

 

[Jaeger]

Nope. I'm teaching you how language works.

No, you're serving as an object lesson in reality denial.

No matter how you twist and dodge, your opinions won't be fact.

Notice in my posts how I preface a lot of what I say with In my opinion...

You may disagree, that's fine.

That you have entirely missed the point I was making is no surprise now that you have doubled down on trying to gaslight me that gatekeeping does not mean what the dictionary says it means.

Nevertheless, the definition that the RPG community uses is the definition of gatekeeping that controls here, not the dictionary version.

And here it is: The "because I say so" defense.

I am also part of the "RPG community" and I only recognize the dictionary definition of gatekeeping. Not the made up one that lets you label anyone that has opinions you don't like.

This of course is the bolt hole you have to run to when you are desperate to not have to backtrack your baseless accusation.

Attempting to assert control by warping accepted definitions is a cowardly tactic.

Und yet...

Yup, still not a good look for you.

 

[Maxperson]

No, you're serving as an object lesson in reality denial.




Notice in my posts how I preface a lot of what I say with In my opinion...

You may disagree, that's fine.

That you have entirely missed the point I was making is no surprise now that you have doubled down on trying to gaslight me that gatekeeping does not mean what the dictionary says it means.




And here it is: The "because I say so" defense.

I am also part of the "RPG community" and I only recognize the dictionary definition of gatekeeping. Not the made up one that lets you label anyone that has opinions you don't like.

This of course is the bolt hole you have to run to when you are desperate to not have to backtrack your baseless accusation.

Attempting to assert control by warping accepted definitions is a cowardly tactic.




Yup, still not a good look for you.

All you have done is evade and twist when confronted and asked to prove your baseless claim that other people are not playing D&D when they remove PC death as an option. Well, that and use Ad Hominem attacks on me instead of presenting your proof.

I'll take your Ad Hominem attacks as an admission that you are aware of how weak your argument is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The angry DM had a campaign that sounded cool, all the PCs got "Not lich" afied and as such every time they died there souls returned to this gem so they could not die

 

[Jaeger]

All you have done is evade and twist when confronted and asked to prove your baseless claim that other people are not playing D&D when they remove PC death as an option.

I have provided concrete examples and explanations for why I believe that removing death from the game is a sufficient paradigm shift to be able to say that you would be no longer playing the game as intended.

That you disagree with my reasons, outright ignore them, or evidently do not accept them at all is one thing. But I did provide them.

Claims of twisting and evading are rather interesting coming from the guy who cited an article by "Dan" as a cornerstone for his weak attempt at a refutation.

Well, that and use Ad Hominem attacks on me instead of presenting your proof.

So you toss out a false accusation of gatekeeping, and then when I defend myself you try to play the victim.

I've seen this tactic before.

Your go-to rhetorical hammer didn't work this time, someone actually didn't take it sitting down.

I'll take your Ad Hominem attacks as an admission that you are aware of how weak your argument is.

A decent attempt at a rhetorical flounce. If a bit transparent.

Someone defending themselves from your baseless accusations does not make you the victim.

You don't get to light a fire under someone's feet, then turn around and pout about how the bad man burned you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

@Jaeger @Maxperson , y’all have locked horns and are attacking each other as well as each other’s positions. It might be time for you to take a voluntary break from each other instead of being given an involuntary one.